The "I don't need IS on ..." is getting old

I suppose this qualifies as a rant, but I am getting really tired of the:

1. "I never found myself wishing I had IS on ..."
2. "IS isn't needed on ... focal lengths"
3. etc.

Look, to all those who think they don't need IS on ..., fine, but:

1. Not everyone has nerves of steel, and some people's fingers/hands shake more than others.
2. IS is ALWAYS helpful when shooting low shutter speeds, no matter the focal length
3. Not everyone is on a tripod 100% of the time.
4. Not everyone shoots in a studio with good lighting all the time.
5. If you're nervous, or you just got excited after running around or whatever, you will shake more.
6. You can't always brace yourself or stand still--sometimes you gotta hold the camera at an awkward angle or with arms out.

Every time the 24-70 is discussed, no matter the subject, there will always be at least one post about how IS is not needed if the thread runs longer than a page. When extra-wides are discussed, like the 16-35, it is quite likely someone will say IS is not needed. Etc.

ENOUGH ALREADY. We aren't all genetically gifted super-photographers or brain surgeons with completely perfect nerves. I am happy your hands are so perfect they do not shake. But mine do. I have issues keeping my 10-22 or 16-35 shots clean without upping ISO to astronomical levels in low light. Consider yourself very lucky you were gifted.

Why keep repeating that you don't need IS? Is it because you want to note you are better than everyone else who does? Should Canon only make lenses that fit your skill level?

For myself, I wish Canon had IS on EVERY lens. Period. It is always helpful for me. Now, I recognize it would make lenses cost more, but well, Canon can figure out what is and isn't profitable for them. But as part of a discussion thread, whether you need IS or not rarely is helpful to the topic.

Some people are better than others at anything. Some people can run 4min miles. Some people can sleep 4hr a day and be okay. Some people just need to make eye contact to get a girl's number. Great! But, IS is ALWAYS helpful to someone, if not to you.

I do agree with what you are saying. It's like not all cars have AWD. It would be nice but its not always needed. Some like the added peace of mind, some can go there whole driving lives without it.

However, we are on the internet, where we can converse with millions of people in a very short time, so inevitably, someone is going to bring up a point that has been discussed at length thousands of times, and it does get annoying.

My advice is to ignore the posts that you find dumb. Makes the forum and your life a little less hectic.

I guess that's the benefit to Sony bodies, having IS in the body. But I know it's not as good as having it in the lens. I definitely wish my EF 135 F/2 had IS. I love my 4 Stop IS on the 70-200 F/4 L IS.

I agree that having IS on all lenses would be great. I don't know why u wouldn't want it. Well, maybe because of weight? Of course it costs more, but if it was the same price with IS and without... why not get it?

IS is always a nice thing to have. It's probably more valuable on longer lenses, but it can be handy on all of them.

There are some wrongheaded ideas about why IS is not needed, and the biggest one is that the only time we need IS is when we want to shoot in low light and we are struggling to handhold the lens.

For me, I actually use IS a lot on travels when I want a slow shutter speed, nevermind the low light. Here are two examples of when I used IS for this reason.

I feel your pain. I'd have IS on every lens if I could, including my Sigma 35. I have shakey hands these days.

On the other hand, folks who don't want (or need) IS are entitled to voice their opinions as well, when the topic is brought up.

JeffreyG wrote in post #16600396
For me, I actually use IS a lot on travels when I want a slow shutter speed, nevermind the low light. Here are two examples of when I used IS for this reason.

That's a good point too. You're right--those types of shots you had (I like the one with the blurry people btw) would normally not be possible without a tripod.

I wish my 10-22 and 28-75 had IS.

IS on everything! We can always turn it off.

I have NEVER heard ANYONE say they "didn't need" IS (or any variation) in ALL situations.

When people say such things, they are talking about specific situations.

The REAL question is NOT whether people would like IS (because NO ONE would reject a lens with the extra benefit of IS, even if they do not need it), but whether or not people are willing to PAY THE PREMIUM that most companies will charge for having it.

^^^^
As with everything else, it is a trade-off between the cost and the benefits. Some people wish they have a Porsche, but are only able or willing to buy a Chevy. The rant of the OP takes into account only one side of the decision, completely ignoring the total picture.

Try decaf.

The only reason I don't really want IS on everything is that when Canon does create an IS lens, it's an excuse for them to bump the price. For example, I could conceivably afford a 135mm f/2L in the relatively near future, but if they come out with a new, improved IS version, you can bet they'd multiply the price by at least 1.5. It's already a great lens; don't mess with it.

SnapshotRN wrote in post #16600475
1 I have NEVER heard ANYONE say they "didn't need" IS (or any variation) in ALL situations.

When people say such things, they are talking about specific situations.

The REAL question is NOT whether people would like IS 2 (because NO ONE would reject a lens with the extra benefit of IS, even if they do not need it), but whether or not people are willing to PAY THE PREMIUM that most companies will charge for having it.

1I've seen it often, and then the old BS line about "we didn't have IS/AF, etc, etc. back in the day"

2Yes...lots of members on here dislike the idea of IS..period!! Just as the whining about having video on cameras.

@ Dillan_K: If Canon brought out a version II of the 135L, it would be over a 50% increase anyways.. if not more (just look at the 24-70 II).

1Tanker wrote in post #16600570
1
2Yes...lots of members on here dislike the idea of IS..period!! Just as the whining about having video on cameras.

This one always makes me laugh. For a while you would even see threads started by people who were looking for a camera with certain features, but they would only consider cameras that were not capable of shooting video. It was as if the ability to shoot video made the camera unusable for these guys.

I don't shoot video, but I don't mind that the camera can do it.

The cost item I get a bit.....but the massive Canon cost increases in the last few years have been for updates to lenses in general whether they have IS or not. A long time ago Canon was adding IS to lenses and bumping the price. Now they just issue new lenses and bump the price even when the old lens also had IS (note all the new supertelephoto lenses going from IS version I to IS version II) or when there is no IS at all (24-70 version I vs version II).

I have several IS lenses but I just don't often find myself shooting at shutter speeds where it would be a benefit. Its great when that need arises, but its probably less than 5% of my shots.